Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

“ chil

being used in the neuter for a state or condition; and it is in this phraseological way, I apprehend, that it is used by the sacred writers, as a term commonly understood. Before I leave this part I must observe, that, notwithstanding these remarks, I do not consider the passage in Luke xx. 27, &c., as giving no express countenance to a first resurrection. The phrase dren of the resurrection,"compared with Rev. xx. is very strong. But, besides this, the whole passage bears on it, in this way :It may,

I think, be shewn that the alwv EKELVOS, “ that age," refers to the dispensation of the Millennium, or thousand years : Christ therefore seems to have added the words tns ek verpwv, first, to shew that the resurrection which shall synchronize with the opening of this dispensation will be a positively literal resurrection from the dead; and secondly, to prevent the Sadducees from availing themselves of any ambiguity in the word avaoTaoic. But in this case the inference cannot be avoided, that the first resurrection is a literal one. It is rather remarkable, that in Acts iv. 2 the expression inV EX vekpwy again occurs where the Sadducees are concerned.

2. The next point which I wish to notice, is the meaning and force of stavuoratus. Not having a good Greek concordance at hand, I may be mistaken in supposing it to occur, apparently, only three times--viz. Acts xxvi. 23; Rom. i. 4; Phil. iii. 11. Now, in the first passage, Acts xxvi. 23, which W. D. has not noticed, there can, I think, be no doubt that it should be written as two words-viz. & avaoTaoews (vɛkpwv)—and be translated, “.... he should first by a resurrection of dead shew light,” &c.; to which the passage is nearly parallel, 2 Tim. i. 10;" who hath abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light.” Our common version is at least very questionable.

In the second passage, Rom. i. 4 (which your correspondent does notice), though W, D. quotes it as one word, it is read in my copy as two; and there can be, I think, little doubt that this is correct. For if it be not two words, how is it governed, since it cannot be in apposition with dywovvns; and the Greek will certainly not admit of its standing absolutely in the genitive. It ought properly to be translated by” or “from a resurrection of dead;” which is an expression quite general, for that wonderful fact through which fresh light was to be poured on the world, and by which Christ was declared to be the Son of God with power.

Thus far, then, it would appear, that' egavaoTaois does not occur in eit of these two passages. In Phil. iii. 11, however, it certainly does occur; the words are, els ?NU Ežavaotao. Tuy verpwr. It does not, however, appear to me that W. D. has established his rendering of this ; but rather that it is entirely assumed : whereas it ought to be clearly shewn that εξαναστασιν των νεκρών

VOL. 1.-NO, II.

2 N

is the same as avaoTaoLV EK TWV vekpwv: or, in other words, that των νεκρών

is

governed by the “Ek" and not by the avaoraoiv. The latter I believe to be the case, and should literally translate the words, “ unto the resurrection of the dead out of -1" The result of these observations, if valid, is important; because it shews that the passage can be claimed exclusively on neither side of the question. Some will make it "out of all the dead; ” others, “out of their graves, tombs, &c.;" and others, perhaps, will simply deem it a stronger term than αναστασις.

Quere, Will any of the saints remain unraised till the end of the thousand years ?-If not, where is the peculiar force of St. Paul's remarkable language in this passage, even supposing W. D.'s translation of it to be correct?

-3. The next point to which I wish to advert, is the explanation given by W. D. of Dan. xii. 2. He observes, that'" the Prophet makes no distinction between the resurrections ; but only between their ulterior conditions.” Now, if we look at the original, Daniel does make a marked distinction. The words

? !, I construed any other way than thus; • And many out of those sleeping in the dust of the earth shall awake” implying, as clearly as possible, that all shall not then awake; and clearly, therefore, distinguishing two resurrections. I know some commentators easily explain it, by saying it means," they that awake shall be many :” but is not the Hebrew quite incapable of such a rendering? or rather, does it not forbid it? I confess it is a difficult passage on either of the hypotheses; for, if all do not awake, it cannot be a general resurrection : if some awake both of the righteous and the wicked, how does it agree with the description of the first resurrection,Rev.xx.? I venture one solution, without laying any stress on it. The words “ are in the Hebrew 77--758 — literally, these--and these; or, as we should say, these—and those. May the verse, then, be translated " Many out of those sleeping in the dust of the earth shall awake: these (who awake) (shall be) to everlasting life; those who remain sleeping) (shall be) to shame and everlasting contempt?” I offer this with great hesitation.

Quere, Does the account of the first resurrection given by St. John allow us to suppose that any of the wicked will at that time be raised for judgment ?

4. In the remark of W. D. on Acts xxiv. 15, 21, he has been betrayed into a slight inaccuracy: @kalw te kai adwww means, as our translators have it, both of just and unjust,” and not of the just and also of the unjust.

Such is the Greek 'idiom. I trust, Mr. Editor, you will accept these ' remarks as offered, not in a spirit of controversy, but with a simple view to a

" some

56 some,

more full and clear explanation of Scripture ; and I shall feel most happy to be corrected by your correspondent, wherever I have been either inaccurate or mistaken. With sincere wishes for the success of your interesting work, I am yours, &c. &c.

PHILANASTASIUS.

P.S. Your reviewer of Irving's Last Days has, I think, been inaccurate in condemning the translation of en' EOXATWY TWV Lepwv TOUTWY. xoxarwv, by the Greek idiom, may certainly agree with quepwv, and need not govern it. I do not see, however, that this destroys the force of the reasoning. I make this remark for the sake of truth, and not of the Eclectic Reviewer. On the contrary, I rejoice greatly that a work like yours has arisen, which may from time to time expose the injurious effrontery and falsehood of many reviewers of the present day, whose religion is all alive in profession; but, if we may judge of it by the almost total absence of humility, meekness, caution, and charitableness, cannot in reality be far from expiring. These anonymous monopolizers of orthodoxy do not scruple to lay their rude hand on many of our good and great men, who, though they may sometimes go a little lame from the fatigue of their mighty exertions, are as superior to them in deep and genuine piety as in sound and scriptural knowledge.

REMARKS ON THE PERIOD ASSIGNED IN SCRIPTURE FOR

THE RESTORATION OF ISRAEL.

By the Rev. PH. Homan. Every person who carefully examines the Divine records must perceive that the fortunes of the Jewish nation are intimately connected with a grand period of seven times, or 2520 years; and that at the close thereof their restoration may be expected, There is such a remarkable coincidence in the result of the following computations, that I am disposed to think that we are now within a few years of that most glorious event, so much to. be desired by every Christian.

1. The captivity of Israel by Esarhaddon, in the reign of Manasseh—a captivity referred to in the vii th chap. of Isaiahtook place A. C. 677. If from this well-marked event we date the seven times, they will be found to terminate in A.D. 1843.

2. From the viii th chap. of Daniel we learn that the sanctuary is to be cleansed at the end of 2300 days. Now, what period can be so appropriately fixed on for the commencement of these 2300 days, as that so well defined in the next chapter, namely, the decree for restoring the civil and ecclesiastical polity of the

Jews, and which must be considered as typical of the future more glorious restoration, when the sanctuary is cleansed ? According to the best commentators, this decree was made in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, A. C. 457 : consequently, the 2300 days, reckoned from this, terminate in A. D. 1843.

3. There can be no doubt but that the restoration of Israel will take place in a year of Jubilee, that remarkable festival, so clearly typifying their restoration to their own land. According to the computations of many chronologers, the next year of Jubilee will occur in 1843 or 1844.

4. Is it fanciful to mention also the time specified in the ixth of Revelation? The continuance of the Ottoman power, so long the scourge of the Jews, is there limited to an hour, a day, a month, and a year-equał to 391 years ; which, being dated from the capture of Constantinople in 1453, will end in A. D. 1844.

TO CORRESPONDENTS. Mr. Borthwick's second Paper has been delayed by his illness : it will appear

in Number 1II., as will also Mr. Irving's second Paper on the Apostasy. The sale of our first Number having exceeded our expectations, we have

printed a larger edition of the second, and are therefore enabled to increase its bulk without adding to the price. Notwithstanding this, we are obliged 10 postpone many articles for want of room; but we beg to assure our correspondents, that we shall endeavour to insert their communications according to the combined ratio of their importance, and the order of time in which we

have received them. We have received several queries for insertion; but most of them would re

quire much discussion : for it we have not at present room, and it would therefore be a species of mockery to insert the queries, and refuse the answers they require. Some of these we hope to decide satisfactorily, as relating to parts of that great systein which it is our professed object to unfold. In the mean time, we must beg the patience of our friends; and assure them, that their letters will be preserved, and attended to at those times when the

subjects of their inquiries come regularly before us. Our much-esteemed correspondent W. will find his questions respecting the New

Covenant and Original Sin fully anticipated in a preceding paper. He will rejoice with us in knowing that our first Number has elicited many approving testimonials similar to his own. Our liinits will not allow of our specifying them individually, but we request the writers to accept collectively of our cordial thanks. Their approbation has cheered our hearts and strengthened our bands: and we would say to them, as we do to each other, “ Be strong and of a good courage: the Lord is on our side."

Page On the Apocalypse, and the Millennium......

273 On the Structure of the Apocalypse..

292 Interpretation of all the Old Testament Prophecies quoted in the New Testament.—No. III.

315 Recherche sur Daniel viii, 13, 14 (on the Number 2300)............ 350

THEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT.

On the New Covenant-(concluded from p. 224)...

354 On God's ultimate revealed Purpose in Creation and New Creation-(concluded from p. 239).......

392 On the true Humanity of Christ

421 A Defence of the Athanasian Creed....

446

REVIEWS AND MISCELLANIES.

....... 470

Review of Sermons, by Dr. A. Thomson
of Dr. Arnold on the Roman-Catholic Question

496
of Rev. S. R. Maitland on the 1260 Days of Daniel and
St. John .....

509 W.D. in Reply to Philanastasius, on the Use of the Greek

Preposition ex in Passages which speak of the Resurrection . 518 To Correspondents ...

524

362,

ERRATA. Page 179, line 29: for line read link.

15: dele the period after him. 367, 2: for correctly read covertly. 371, 23: for opposition is between, read opposition is not between. 381, 21: insert clothe before with the wool. 385, 15: for but much concerning this prophecy, read but not much, &c. 389, 14: for Lyon read Exon.

401, 3: dele the semicolon after people. The paragraphs in pp. 406, 408, should have been numbered 13 (a, b, c), instead

of 14 (a, b, c), to agree with the Analysis on p. 393,

« ZurückWeiter »